Follica - New Patent Published 2017 - Needling Device And Drug Applicator

[Crystalclear12]

I don't know about that. If the wounding is going to be very deep, only a qualified and licensed doctor will have to perform it. If it falls under surgery within terms of the medical board, it is very unlikely a technician can perform the surgery. It it different than techs filling in surface holes with grafts or cutting grafts from a band of scalp that is not on the patient.

Exactly my point. "If it falls under surgery...", which I don't think it will, in which case techs would do it. We'll see what happens, it's all speculation. This is my opinion.

 

[DoctorHouse]

Exactly my point. "If it falls under surgery...", which I don't think it will, in which case techs would do it. We'll see what happens, it's all speculation. This is my opinion.

PRP can be performed by nurses, yet most doctors do it themselves instead. This may be the case with Follica. It will have way more value if a doctor performs it. This will be an advantage for the doctor to attract patients to his practice. So many people don't like techs performing certain procedures and would rather a doctor perform it. I really feel at first, this procedure will be done only by a doctor.

 

[Crystalclear12]

PRP can be performed by nurses, yet most doctors do it themselves instead. This may be the case with Follica. It will have way more value if a doctor performs it. This will be an advantage for the doctor to attract patients to his practice. So many people don't like techs performing certain procedures and would rather a doctor perform it. I really feel at first, this procedure will be done only by a doctor.

I do too lol it will be just like hair transplants, top doctors performed them until they got enough clients, now techs do all the legwork. I said in this thread doctors will perform it for the first year for marketing then they'll have techs do it. And what makes you think that doctors will give more value? The doctor himself also has to learn the procedure from scratch, the same way a tech would need to.

 

[DoctorHouse]

I do too lol it will be just like hair transplants. I said in this thread doctors will perform it for the first year until for marketing then they'll have techs do it. And what makes you think that doctors will give more value? The doctor himself also has to learn the procedure from scratch, the same way a tech would need to.

If you had a choice between a doctor doing your hair transplant or a technician, who would you chose?

 

[Trichosan]

I think the implantation of living tissue will fall under the requirement of doctor performed procedure. At least in the US and it could further be subject to the laws of individual states medical boards.

 

[Crystalclear12]

If you had a choice between a doctor doing your hair transplant or a technician, who would you chose?

I would choose a doctor, but all it takes is a doctor to get his hands dirty for a while, market his brand, then have techs do it, similar to 90% of hair transplant docs. They think the Doctor will do it when they're going in, find out it's not the case, do it anyway, just like what's happening wi h hair transplants

 

[Trichosan]

If you had a choice between a doctor doing your hair transplant or a technician, who would you chose?

As a doctor, I'd prefer the technician do it. As a patient, I prefer the doctor. Strange dichotomy isn't it?

 

[DoctorHouse]

I think the implantation of living tissue will fall under the requirement of doctor performed procedure. At least in the US and it could further be subject to the laws of individual states medical boards.

We are only talking about the US. Follica is currently only concentrating on the US. They may consider taking this patent to other countries but as of right now the US is their first priority. That was said in my interview with the CEO.

 

[Crystalclear12]

I think the implantation of living tissue will fall under the requirement of doctor performed procedure. At least in the US and it could further be subject to the laws of individual states medical boards.

But.. techs do hair transplant surgery.... that's living tissue...

 

[Crystalclear12]

As a doctor, I'd prefer the technician do it. As a patient, I prefer the doctor. Strange dichotomy isn't it?

Which is why techs will do it lol.

 

[DoctorHouse]

I would choose a doctor, but all it takes is a doctor to get his hands dirty for a while, market his brand, then have techs do it, similar to 90% of hair transplant docs. They think the Doctor will do it when they're going in, find out it's not the case, do it anyway, just like what's happening wi h hair transplants

You chose a doctor over a technician because the doctor has more "value" than a tech. That is why he is paid big bucks. The more value and unique your job becomes, the more likely you will get paid more. You have a tech doing it and most potential patients will frown upon it if the neighboring doctor is doing it himself.

 

[Trichosan]

Well, hopefully we will find out soon. I'm ready for hair, thank you.

 

[Crystalclear12]

You chose a doctor over a technician because the doctor has more "value" than a tech. That is why he is paid big bucks. The more value and unique your job becomes, the more likely you will get paid more. You have a tech doing it and most potential patients will frown upon it if the neighboring doctor is doing it himself.

This is untrue, which is clear in the hair transplant industry. Patients think they'll go to Armani's clinic and Armani himself will do 100% of the procedure, it's all marketing. Once they realize the techs do most the work do they decide to leave? No they post on forums saying things like " I thought Armani would do it, but the techs did, a bit upset about it but I let it go." Just like any other business doctors in cosmetic business, they're pumping out patients. A doctors time is better spent overseeing than hands on, which is what happens with hair transplant and will happen with follica IMO.

 

[DoctorHouse]

This is untrue, which is clear in the hair transplant industry. Patients think they'll go to Armani's clinic and Armani himself will do 100% of the procedure, it's all marketing. Once they realize the techs do most the work do they decide to leave? No they post on forums saying things like " I thought Armani would do it, but the techs did, a bit upset about it but I let it go." Just like any other business doctors in cosmetic business, they're pumping out patients. A doctors time is better spent overseeing than hands on, which is what happens with hair transplant and will happen with follica IMO.

You are referring to the uneducated patients who don't research things before they pull the trigger. And when you have an educated choice, you will pick the doctor. However, if you have no choice, then you might settle or leave.

 

[Crystalclear12]

You are referring to the uneducated patients who don't research things before they pull the trigger. And when you have an educated choice, you will pick the doctor. However, if you have no choice, then you might settle or leave.

99% of the top hair transplant doctors have techs extract/split and some even implant grafts. People still choose those top hair transplant doctors over local docs that do it themselves. Simple supply and demand. So much demand for those top hair transplant docs, not enough supply. That's where techs come in.

 

[nameless]

99% of the top hair transplant doctors have techs extract/split and some even implant grafts. People still choose those top hair transplant doctors over local docs that do it themselves. Simple supply and demand. So much demand for those top hair transplant docs, not enough supply. That's where techs come in.

The hair transplant procedure is decades old. The Follica scalp laser is not even 1 day old yet. Yea, someday techs MAY do the Follica laser; someday machines may do it the same as ARTAS does hair transplants. But once marketed and for the foreseeable future doctors will do the Follica laser wounding. And the FDA will play a key role in these decisions. The FDA sees decades old plug-graft removal as different from a brand new laser device burning people's scalps.

 

[Crystalclear12]

The hair transplant procedure is decades old. The Follica scalp laser is not even 1 day old yet. Yea, someday techs MAY do the Follica laser; someday machines may do it the same as ARTAS does hair transplants. But once marketed and for the foreseeable future doctors will do the Follica laser wounding. And the FDA will play a key role in these decisions. The FDA sees decades old plug-graft removal as different from a brand new laser device burning people's scalps.

You've said that you think the doctors will do it, I understood your opinion the 100 previous times you mentioned it, you can shut up now

 

[nameless]

Exactly my point. "If it falls under surgery...", which I don't think it will, in which case techs would do it. We'll see what happens, it's all speculation. This is my opinion.

You are so full of sh*t - even if it doesn't fall under surgery the FDA may insist that doctors do it. The FDA doesn't give any thought to your hunches when it makes its' decisions. The FDA will make its' decision and you will live with that like it or not.

 

[Crystalclear12]

You are so full of sh*t - even if it doesn't fall under surgery the FDA may insist that doctors do it. The FDA doesn't give any thought to your hunches when it makes its' decisions. The FDA will make its' decision and you will live with that like it or not.

Please shut up

 

[nameless]

Here's what doctors say:

https://www.realself.com/question/who-qualified-do-laser-skin-resurfacing


Read below - highlighting by me:

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW: INCREASING CONCERNS ABOUT DELEGATION
Prior to 1998, there exist few if any published reports regarding nonphysician performance of laser procedures.1 Presumably, this dearth stemmed from the very small size of the laser business, which was the province of a few subspecialist physicians. Moreover, many commonly used lasers, such as those for hair removal and tattoo or pigment removal, had only recently been introduced, and their parameters of use were not standardized. The landscape has changed. As early as 8 to 10 years ago, reports documented the increasing tension between dermatologists and electrologists over the training required to perform laser hair removal, with dermatologists advocating that licensed physicians should supervise and be on-site; states, such as Texas, that do not require licensing for electrologists were a particular area of concern.1,2 Yet concurrently, data was presented to show that “properly trained” nurses had no greater risk than physicians of inducing undesirable outcomes like pigmentation change and blistering after laser hair removal with long-pulsed alexandrite laser.3 Most recently, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS) reported that more than 100 million laser and light-source cosmetic procedures were performed by its members.4 And the increase appears to be even greater among nonphysician providers. More ominously, studies suggest that a proportionately greater amount of complications are arising from dermatologic care delivered by physician extenders. Nearly 53% of 488 dermatologists surveyed in Texas in 2004 reported seeing increased complications associated with delegation to nonphysicians, with 33% of those surveyed asserting that they knew of such complications arising in the absence of a supervising physician on-site during treatment delivery.5 This confirmed earlier results of a survey of 2400 members of the ASDS in 2001, which ascribed the preponderance of posttreatment patient complications to “nonphysician operators,” including cosmetic technicians, estheticians, and workers in medical/dental offices who performed procedures for which they were not trained or during the performance of which they were inadequately supervised.6 A growing body of evidence suggests that nonphysician provision of laser services and insufficient physician oversight of extenders may be jeopardizing patients, unnecessarily raising complication rates, and leaving dermatologists vulnerable to public censure and legal liability.